cl or m5...

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
4:19 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
if one wanted a leica with built in meter at an relatively cheap price...it's either the cl or the m5, yes?

which would you choose?
 
Have you seen what M5's are fetching these days? So it's a CL. Or a Bessa, CLE, Hexar RF ... I considered this question myself recently. I don't think there's enough price difference between the M6 classic and the M5 to make the M5 worth the trouble. It's become a serious collectable and still has all the added complexity which frightened people off when it was new. The CL on the other hand has such a small RF base and limited choice of frame lines that I decided to take the punt on a CLE instead.
 
The CL is much cheaper. You can get it with a 40mm Summicron, often for a couple hundred less than an M5 body.
 
I'd say the M5 would be the better camera, but it's also several hundred more dollars and larger. Depends on the lenses you like to use; I'm a telephoto guy, so I'd want the wider baselength of the M5 for focusing an f2 90mm. KEH currently has a 3 lug m5 for $725.
 
I suspect You will carry both the Film and Your XE1 together...
If so get the CL.... dynamite compact camera and with a 40 sonnar, or cron your set

I Adore my recently acquired minty M5
( the old style meter is Superb, the BIG shutter dial & view in Window is Superb, i love vertical hanging )


I just saw at 'Adorama' a CL ...VG condt for $299.00 , hmmmm
 
I had used both. CL for compactness, perfect as a back up. M5 is built like a tank, if you were going to chose one as your main.... Get the M5, the CL is made by Minolta, cannot compared to the real M in turns of build quality.
 
Everyone needs a CL.

;)

The CLE is great, but I can't trust electronics of that age. They are known now for getting flakey and being unrepairable. Not so with the CL, (except for its electronic meter.)
 
photografity said:
cannot compared to the real M in turns of build quality.
Click to expand...

What is this "build quality" everyone refers to? I've never heard anyone complaining of CLs not having a flat film plane, or having variable film-flange distances (as the Hexar RF was thought to have) or having light leaks even though it has no foam seals. It's a lightweight camera, not made of solid brass. But the standard to which it was built was exemplary.
 
I went from M5 to CL, and I love both... both were such different experiences from the standard Leica.

I think M5 wins for adaptability: more framelines so you're not limited to 40, 50, 90 like on the CL without an external VF. Longer baselength so focus is more accurate and can get a bit closer. More speeds as well.

But for value the CL definitely takes the cake, I got mine for $200 CAD, CLA'd, working wonderfully... just a little banged up. Does what a RF needs to do. Had no trouble focusing with mine.

Both have an oversized shutter speed dial making it awesomely efficient to use.

I don't miss my M5 now that I have the CL!
 
back alley said:
if one wanted a leica with built in meter at an relatively cheap price...it's either the cl or the m5, yes?

which would you choose?
Click to expand...

M6s are not outrageous these days ($900-1400 nets a good one it seems), M5s have become more expensive.

The CL is definitely the price leader. I bought a near perfect CL body (from another RFFer) last year some time for about $300 IIRC. It had been recently serviced and works beautifully. I fitted it with a M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 gen II lens (originally from the CLE model), but it has no trouble focusing with the Nokton 50/1.5 or M-Rokkor 90/4.

The CL is one of my favorite film Leicas. It's why I've often said I want a Leica CL Digital camera.

G
 
M5. I now have three at the same time.

I've had CL cameras, and find them less reliable and don't fit as nicely in my hands.
And they are complex to maintain and repair.

The M5 fits right, are straight-forward to maintain (just like an M) and feel solid.
And the M5 balances the bigger lenses so nicely.

I don't own any more CL's. But I kept the 40 Summicron - fantastic lens.
 
For serious use, buy a newer camera or be prepared to pay for repairs many of which are age related.

Sherry Krauter has all the spare parts for the CL from Leica.
 
And to quote a friend who bought a CL when they came out, "Drop a sixpence on the top plate and it dents". Note for colonial readers: a sixpence was about the same size and weight as a dime. Not that this affects performance: look for a cheap dented one...

M5s are OK if you find other Leicas too small, too light, too easy to repair, or (in the case of the M6/M6ttl, M7 and MP) too new or too expensive. Or, of course, in the case of the M8/M8.2 and M9, too digital.

I'm partially with Ronald M on this one: "For serious use, buy a newer camera or be prepared to pay for repairs many of which are age related." But only partially. Otherwise, buy a non-metered M.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dave Jenkins said:
I've owned two CLs. Buying the second one proves I'm a slow learner! Most inconvenient to use cameras I've ever owned.
Click to expand...
Dear Dave,

Wanna swap it for an Exakta Varex?

From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps collect varex.html

Those who are accustomed to more modern cameras may however breathe a short prayer of thanks at the fact that they don't make 'em like this any more. Compared with the vast majority of cameras past or present, many of the controls are upside down or backwards or both. It is not so much a camera with some eccentric features built in, as a collection of eccentric features with a camera hiding somewhere behind them.

Cheers,

R.
 
For which lens(es), Joe ?

Actually the least expensive Leica is usually the M2. So that's what I would pick if using a 35mm or 50mm lens. The CL if you want to go with 40mm; or a Bessa R3* or Rollei RF.

Remember your Canon P times :) No in camera meter required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom